The court dismissed the mother’s appeal of the dismissal of her motion to vary a prevention order and an order granting the father sole custody and her supervised access in T.L.L.L. v. J.J.L., 2015 MBCA 68, finding that no material change was demonstrated. “The passage of time and the wishes of children of a certain age might, in some cases, constitute a material change,” said the court, but in this case, to prove a material change the mother would have to demonstrate “insight into how her behaviour can negatively affect her children and their best interests.” (para.16) Of particular concern were recent breaches of the custody order (resulting in a contempt finding against the mother) and her unsubstantiated allegations that the father physically and sexually abused the children.

The court rejected the husband’s multi-faceted attack on the validity of a cohabitation agreement he claimed never to have read in Langdon v. Langdon, 2015 MBQB 153. The court declined to make a broad statement on whether a cohabitation agreement is presumptively terminated upon a resumption in cohabitation, preferring instead to proceed on the basis that whether it is depends on the intention of the parties. In this case there was no evidence before the court that the husband’s intention was ever anything but to be bound. The decision also addresses the following issues: proof of non est factum (wilful blindness doesn’t cut it), the law of unconscionability in Manitoba (including claims of duress, undue influence, absence of utmost good faith, inadequate financial disclosure and lack of independent legal advice), contra proferentem (concerning clauses in the agreement dealing with future “property” and spousal support releases), and whether s.59 of The Real Property Act (indefeasible title) overrides the cohabitation agreement with respect to a subsequently purchased condominium which was placed in the parties’ joint names to avoid future probate taxes. On the latter issue the court found at paras.194-195: Section 59(1) is not there to conclusively determine the interests of owners as between themselves, or to provide an override for legal consequences they created and which may compromise their beneficial ownership or interest in the land….and it is no shield to them when they have in law compromised that ownership between themselves.

Hoping to bring final resolution to the protracted litigation in England v. Nguyen, 2015 MBQB 139, the court directed the mother (whose blameworthy conduct and failure to fulfill financial obligations had significantly harmed the children) to use the full proceeds “notionally” due to her from the sale of the parties’ house to reimburse the children for the RESP funds she had wrongfully used and to pay retroactive child support and overdue costs. The court also exercised its discretion to terminate the mother’s child support obligations on an ongoing basis, given her limited resources, the ages of the now adult children and her estrangement from them, and the duration of the children’s educational pursuits.

Lafreniere v. Bulloch, 2015 MBQB 137 – the court granted the petitioner’s application for a prevention order applying to her and to her own son, but not to the parties’ 3-year-old son. Keown v. Mainer, 2015 MBQB 133 – applying DBS, the court declined to make a retroactive child support order in this case. Of concern were the unexplained delay in pursuing support, blameworthy conduct on both sides, and potential hardship to the payor. Haskey v Haskey, 2015 MBQB 129 – the court imputed income to the father after finding he was intentionally underemployed. The evidence confirmed he was able to earn more than $100,000 per year in the oil fields, but quit that work each time the parties separated and worked for his family earning less than half that salary (in order, he argued, to be able to be more available to the three children). Métis Child, Family and Community Services v. T.S.N. and R.E.E., 2015 MBQB 127 – the court comments on the need for better processes in child protection proceedings in the context of a case “where sadly the process was completely disproportionate to the nature of the dispute between the agency and the parents of an infant child.” In particular, the court concludes that “(a) motion for summary judgment with the court having the expanded powers and the discretion to hear oral evidence as has been granted to courts in Ontario is a tool that has the potential to promote a culture where child protection proceedings…are proportional, timely and cost-effective.” (para. 142)

The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (Critical Incident Reporting), S.M. 2014, c. 33, was proclaimed in force October 15, 2015. The new rules require the immediate reporting of all critical incidents involving children in care by employees and others who work or provide services for child and family services agencies or authorities. Bill 33, The Family Law Reform Act (Putting Children First), introduced June 3, 2015, proposes sweeping changes to Manitoba’s laws governing enforcement of child and spousal support, parentage, child custody and access. The Bill would repeal The Family Maintenance Act and replace it with two separate statutes: The Family Law Act, to address the rights and duties as between family members and The Family Support Enforcement Act, which will govern support enforcement and the duties of the Maintenance Enforcement Program. The bill also proposes amendments to The Court of Queen’s Bench Act to lay the foundation for the summary, administrative family court process that forms part of the Simplified Family Justice pilot project. Highlights of the bill, detailed in the explanatory note, include: a comprehensive scheme to determine a child's legal parents, including where assisted reproduction has been used; new rules for relocation proposals; a right for children to seek their own child support; and new enforcement measures. Manitoba Regulation 98/2015 was registered June 16, 2015 and will come into force November 1, 2015, making significant changes to Rule 70 as described in the following Court of Queen’s Bench Notice.

The Court of Queen’s Bench issued a notice regarding Amendments to Rule 70, on July 5, 2015. The notice describes the substantive and procedural changes to Rule 70.24 (the case management rule) in Part B and lists the changes of general application in Part A.

Views of the child - Interview reports offer less intrusive way of protecting children’s rights – the authors of this Lawyers Weekly article (both law professors) discuss the growing use of View of the Child reports and their advantages and limitations. The Boomers Are Coming: Economic and Other Issues of Older Individuals – Jean Paul Boyd and Anna Laing discuss how our growing aging population will challenge our family law system in this paper prepared for the National Judicial Institute. Battle over Child Support Guidelines ongoing despite SCC ruling and “I don’t wanna hear it!” Supreme Court affirms Federal Court’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction in Strickland v Canada (Attorney General) – these Legal Feeds and Canadian Appeals Monitor blogposts discuss the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Strickland v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 37, involving a challenge to the validity of the Child Support Guidelines and the Federal Court’s decision to decline judicial review jurisdiction in favour of the provincial superior court. Therapeutic Interventions and the Alienated Child: Whose Interests Are We Serving, and How Are We Serving Them? - this Slaw post concerns the difficult topic of parental alienation and offers tips on how to choose an appropriate therapeutic intervention. Ashley Madison and the Deep (And Sometimes Dark) Web – this Slaw post offers a primer on the “deep” web, for those searching for online evidence in family law cases. More On Whether a Kid Can Launch His or Her Own Child Support Claim - this familyllb post concerns C.M.M. v D.G.C., 2015 ONSC 2447, a case currently before the courts in Ontario in which a minor has brought her own child support claim. Can retainers include lawyers’ authority to withdraw from a family law case? – this Legal Feeds post discusses an Ontario case in which a Law Society tribunal made misconduct findings against a family law lawyer who exercised a discretion to withdraw for non-payment of fees set out in the retainer agreement. The tribunal found that the lawyer’s appropriation of the client’s right to terminate the relationship ‘at will’ and the lack of guidance on the need for independent legal advice put the lawyer in an inherent conflict of interest.

Family Division Case Management Changes – register now to attend one of the remaining sessions (October 20 or 27) of this important program on amendments to Rule 70, coming into effect in November, 2015. The changes, relating to case management practice and procedures, will affect your day-to-day practice, and this program will provide practical tips to help you navigate the new landscape. The Inaugural Child Protection Program – this full day, now sold out program, to be held November 13, 2015 at the Fort Garry Hotel, will explore the state of the child protection system in Manitoba and across Canada. Notable speakers, including Ontario Justice Carol Curtis, Professor Rollie Thompson, four Court of Queen’s Bench judges, and experienced practitioners, will cover such topics as evidentiary issues, parent capacity assessments, and a survey of what has worked (or not) in other jurisdictions. Add your name to the waiting list and you will be contacted should a spot become available. Working with Domestic Violence Clients - this afternoon workshop, presented in collaboration with the Domestic Violence & Family Law Network, will provide an overview of domestic violence from both the victim and abuser perspective. Presenters Mary Lobson and Greg Evans will offer practical strategies to enhance client safety and provide a framework for working with clients who have experienced domestic violence. The program takes place from 1:00 to 4:00 pm on November 26, 2015, in the Law Society classroom. New Rights, New Obligations: An Introduction to the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act – the Winnipeg date (December 10, 2015) for this free program on the new Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act is sold out, but there are still spots in The Pas (November 20), Thompson (November 27), Portage la Prairie (February 26) and Brandon (March 16), as well as a dvd replay scheduled at the Law Society classroom on January 7, 2016.

The 2016 Joint Family Law Program, To Line 150 & Beyond - Exploring the Final Frontiers of Income Imputation, will take place March 4, 2016, at Fort Garry Place.

The Canadian Elder Law Conference, which takes place November 12-13, 2015 in Vancouver, is a must attend event for family law practitioners according to the author of this Slaw post, who notes the many challenges involved in later-in-life separation and divorce. See the registration page and conference agenda for further details.